Berkeley Division
Librarian Academic Review
Frequently Asked Questions
I. CANDIDATES
The calendars of exact due dates for the review process are issued annually and posted at the Library Human Resources Department (LHRD) or for affiliated librarians at the Academic Personnel Office (APO) websites. For Promotion or Career Status reviews speak to your Review Initiator and assemble your documents in early November. The Review Initiator must submit all documentation to LHRD or APO by mid-February. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LHRD/time.html or http://apo.chance.berkeley.edu/librarians.htm For Merit and Special reviews confer with your Review Initiator and begin to assemble your documents in November. The Review Initiator must submit all documentation to LHRD or APO by mid-March. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LHRD/timtbla.html or http://apo.chance.berkeley.edu/librarians.htm Late dossiers seriously disadvantage both the candidate and the peer review process by limiting CAPA’s ability to review dossiers at comparable appointment levels. See Procedures for Review of Librarian Appointments, Promotions, and Advancement and Administrative Review Procedures for Librarians Requesting a Reconsideration of a Salary or Promotion Decision (commonly called the Berkeley Procedures) Section VI.A.5. Failure of any participant in the peer review timetable as permitted in APM 360-80(a)(2), shall be explicitly cited in the participant’s own review as a negative reflection on professional judgement and competence. Section VI.B.1.f. If a candidate fails to provide the review initiator with a self-evaluation or to secure an extension within two weeks of the final deadline, the review initiator will complete his/her review and forward the review dossier as usual. The maximum extension past the final deadline is thirty days. A request for an extension of the timetable must be in writing with an explanation of the unforeseen circumstance that requires an extension of the timetable. Submit the request to your Review Initiator as early as possible in the review cycle. Authorization must be secured no later than three weeks before the deadline. The maximum extension past the final deadline is thirty days. The request will become part of the candidate’s file. The person who grants the extension must notify LHRD or APO promptly. Procedures For Review of Librarian Appointments... (Berkeley Procedures), VI.B.1.f. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LHRD/lib6.html A deferral is a neutral action that is appropriate in the case of a prolonged absence or other unusual circumstance and that can only be initiated with the written agreement of the candidate. It is not granted automatically. The candidate, the review initiator, and CAPA must put their recommendations regarding a proposed deferral in writing for a final decision by the University Librarian or the Vice Provost (for affiliated librarians). A deferral can only be granted for one year at a time. See Berkeley Procedures, VII.A.2. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LHRD/lib6.html ; the Academic Personnel Manual (APM) 360-80 a.(2) http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-360.pdf based upon the Memorandum of Understanding ...Professional Librarian Unit (MOU) Article 4 C.2. http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/librarians_lib/agreement.html All proposed deferrals of a promotion or career status review must be submitted by the candidate and the Review Initiator to CAPA by mid-November at the latest. The candidate and the Review Initiator have until January to submit to CAPA a request for a deferral of a merit increase review. LHRD and APO must also be notified at the same time. See the appropriate timetables for specific dates. The candidate or the review initiator may request an accelerated review. Acceleration should be considered in cases of unusual achievement and exceptional promise of continued growth. “[O]utstanding achievement is grounds for accelerated advancement.” Berkeley Procedures, III.B.2. See also Berkeley Procedures, VI.B.1.d.; VII.A.1.; VII.B.3. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LHRD/lib6.html based upon the APM 360-80 a.(1) http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-360.pdf based upon the MOU Article 4 C.1. http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/librarians_lib/agreement.html If you wish to request either to be reviewed a year early or to advance more than one step in the Librarian series (either of which can be a form of acceleration), inform your Review Initiator by the beginning of November and begin to compile the documentation for your accelerated review. The review period is based upon the calendar year, not the University’s fiscal year. (The advancement or salary increase, if awarded, will be effective at the beginning of the next fiscal year.) Therefore, a librarian on a two-year review cycle who plans to file a dossier in March 2004 will put together a dossier based upon achievements from January 2002 through December 2003. The review period is based upon the calendar year, not the University’s fiscal year. (The advancement or salary increase, if awarded, will be effective at the beginning of the next fiscal year.) Therefore, a librarian on a three-year review cycle who plans to file a dossier in March 2004 will put together a dossier based upon achievements from January 2001 through December 2003. Even though the dossier will concentrate upon this time frame, in the upper steps of the Librarian rank it is appropriate to give some consideration to one’s whole career as a librarian. The career status review should evaluate a candidate’s entire career as a librarian and not just the few years since the last review. It is appropriate in a career status review to evaluate the candidate’s entire professional career, not just at Berkeley but also in prior employment, if any. A candidate is judged, (1) above all else, on the basis of his or her professional competence and quality of service within the library and, as relevant, on one or more of the following three criteria: (2) professional activity outside the library, (3) University and public service, and (4) research and other creative activity. An explanation of these criteria is set forth in APM 210-4 .e(3). http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/welcome.html See also references to APM 210-4 in APM360-10 http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-360.pdf and in Berkeley Procedures, VI.A. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LHRD/lib6.html A candidate for career status must be fully reviewed in accordance with the criteria for merit or promotion reviews. A decision on career status must be made within six years for an individual appointed at the rank of Assistant Librarian, within four years for an individual appointed at the rank of Associate Librarian, and within three years for an individual appointed at the rank of Librarian. APM360-17.b. http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-360.pdf Berkeley Procedures, VI.B. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LHRD/lib6.html Follow the criteria for the type of review being requested: merit, career status, or promotion. In addition to those criteria, demonstrate “outstanding achievement.” “[O]utstanding achievement is grounds for accelerated advancement.” Berkeley Procedures, III.B.2. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LHRD/lib6.html The self-evaluation is most effective when it is organized under headings related to the relevant criteria of review. The significant achievements of the period under review should be analyzed for their impact upon the goals of the candidate’s department, the University or the profession. See http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LHRD/revself.html All librarians and especially affiliated librarians, who may have unique responsibilities, should include an introductory paragraph that explains the nature of their collection and their position within their unit. The supporting documentation should be carefully chosen and relevant to the period under review. Appropriate documents may include copies of articles written, other published materials, and significant electronic projects. The place for detailing all of your activities is the Biography Form 1501 or its equivalent. The form is available online at http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Staff/LHRD/Aca_Bio.doc In cases of promotion, career status reviews and the upper steps of the Librarian rank, you should provide a list of names of persons who can comment upon your professional performance to your Review Initiator. The Review Initiator may or may not use all of these names. Such letters of evaluation are usually not necessary in normal merit reviews, but may be appropriate in certain cases. See APM360-80.e. http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-360.pdf ; Berkeley Procedures, VII.B.6. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LHRD/lib6.html CAPA advises Review Initiators that typically three letters are requested; it all depends upon the needs of each case for support of key achievements. You may provide the names of persons you wish to exclude and reasons why they may not objectively evaluate your qualifications or performance to your Review Initiator. This statement must be in writing and will be included in your file. Berkeley Procedures, VII.B.6.a. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LHRD/lib6.html APM360-80.f. http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-360.pdf Please note that providing such a list does not preclude the Review Initiator from contacting these persons. The Review Initiator’s decision whether or from whom to solicit letters is not subject to grievance or arbitration. MOU Article 4 C.8. http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/librarians_lib/agreement.html You may request redacted copies of confidential documents included in your dossier from LHRD or APO before the review process is completed (and/or afterwards). And, you may submit a written statement in response to, or commenting on, the material in your file. MOU Article 4.C.10, 11, 12. There is a collective bargaining agreement between The Regents of the University of California and the librarians, with a few exceptions for certain supervisory employees. This is the basic legal contract between librarians and UC. It specifically provides for local procedures at various points. Much of the language in our local procedures is adopted directly from the MOU. Article 9 D. of the MOU says “A copy of this Agreement shall be given by the University of each librarian, including any librarians who are hired after the effective date of this Agreement.” This is the practice followed by the Berkeley Library Human Resources Department and the Academic Personnel Office. http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/librarians_lib/agreement.html The President of the University of California has issued policies and procedures pertaining to academic employees, including librarians, and UC. The APM applies to librarians governed by the MOU only to the extent provided for in the MOU. Much of the language of the APM is derived from the MOU. http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/welcome.html These are our local procedures that implement the MOU and the APM. They mimic much of the language of the MOU and the APM, but they also name the specific groups and individuals who are responsible for various parts of the procedure and for decision-making. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LHRD/lib6.html LAUC is an official unit of UC that includes all librarians, including the supervisory and management levels. LAUC’s purpose is to advise the Office of the President, campus administration and library administration on matters relating to libraries and librarians, other than matters covered by the MOU and other union negotiations. LAUC does issue position papers on matters that affect all librarians at UC. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LAUC/ ; APM360 Appendix B http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-360.pdf CAPA is a standing committee of the Berkeley Division of LAUC (LAUC-B). CAPA consists of seven librarians who review and make recommendations to the University Librarian or the Vice Provost, as appropriate, for all cases of appointment, promotion, merit increase and career status. CAPA absolutely guards the confidentiality of individual review cases. Current members of CAPA do not comment or give advice upon policies or procedures related to the review process. Berkeley Procedures, IV.B. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LHRD/lib6.html |